6 Agenda Number of Days Required Evaluation Activities and Questions Instructions Activities for Stage of Involvement #4 FINAL REVIEW Purpose When to Perform Data to Review Prior to the Review Data to Review at the Review...71 Number of Days Evaluation Activities and Questions Instructions PART 4 - SUMMARIZING COMPLIANCES, FINDINGS, AND OBSERVATIONS FOR EACH DO-178B OBJECTIVE...73 APPENDIX A ALTERNATE APPROACH FOR RECORDING FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS/COMPLIANCES... A-1 APPENDIX B REFERENCES... B-1 Page ii Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

9 SUMMARY OF CHANGES The purpose of Revision 1 to the Software Review Job Aid is to implement references to current policy, address lessons learned since 1998, correct errors, and add special concerns (e.g, object-oriented technology, real-time operating systems, and reverse engineering). Significant changes to the Job Aid are summarized below. Change Combined Sections 1-3 into a single Part 1 Moved Appendix A (example agendas, letters, and report) to Supplement 3. Moved Appendix B (the Summary of Compliances/ Findings/Objectives form) to Part 4 Added Supplements 1, 2, and 4. Added the concept of documenting compliances Added definitions for actions and issues Reworded the definitions of finding and observation Added Appendix A Added references and Appendix B Modified ASI role Modified activities/questions in part 3 Removed the column for check marks in the activities/questions tables in Part 3 Edited/reworded most existing questions in Part 3 Added 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.7, & in Part 3 Reason for the Change To condense up-front information and get to the main body of the document faster. To reduce the size of the Job Aid for those who physically carry it. The summary was moved to the main body to highlight the importance of summarizing the review results against the DO-178B objectives. To provide additional information for reviewers. The supplements provide useful information that may not be frequently needed. To encourage documentation of the good things, as well as the findings and observations during a review. To provide an approach for complete documentation of the review activities. To be consistent with FAA Order Documents an alternate approach for documenting review results. This approach has been effectively used on a number of reviews. Inserted references to appropriate documents (for example, Order ), where possible. Removed ASI involvement in software review process, since that direction was changed by FAA management. Added a QA/CM member to carry out this role. To address lessons-learned over the past 5 years (e.g., from FAA realtime course, tutorials, object-oriented technology projects, handbooks, etc.). To reduce the checklist mentality. Reviewers may still wish to add columns to track activity, document issues, and document reviewed data. For clarity. In some cases the questions were also renumbered in order to improve the flow of the tables. To more thoroughly review plans upfront and to address interfaces between software personnel and systems, safety, and hardware personnel. This change led to some renumbering of activity 1.1 questions. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page v

10 Change Reworded question in Part 3 Modified & reordered questions in Part 3 Added in Part 3 Modified questions in Part 3 Added questions and in Part 3 Modified/renumbered questions & in Part 3 Added in Part 3 Added 1.6.4, 1.6.5, , and in Part 3 Added questions 1.7.3, thru in Part 3 Modified 1.7.5, in Part 3 Added in Part 3 Added and in Part 3 Added 1.10 and questions in Part 3 Added 1.11 and questions in Part 3 Added , , , , , & in Part 3 Inserted activities/questions 2.5 and 2.6 in Part 3 Added questions & in Part 3 Added 2.12 in Part 3 Added 2.13 in Part 3 Added 2.14 in Part 3 Added 2.15 in Part 3 Added 2.16 in Part 3 Added 3.1 in Part 3 Added 3.2 in Part 3 Added in Part 3 Reason for the Change Removed reference to major/minor changes, since the Job Aid focuses on pre-certification rather than post-certification. For clarification and completeness. To address reverse engineering concerns. To clarify the change process for plans and the tie to the safety assessment process. To more completely evaluate the development process. For completeness. To address sub-tier suppliers. To more thoroughly evaluate the SQA plan. To more thoroughly evaluate the software verification plan. For completeness. For more complete evaluation of safety aspects. For more complete evaluation of the software development standards. To address real-time software issues. To address object-oriented technology issues. For more thorough evaluation of the development process. To address real-time software development issues. To address configuration of tools and compiler options in development environment. To address memory management. To address software tools. To address partitioning/protection. To address real-time operating systems, when used. To address object-oriented technology concerns. To ensure SVP is being followed. To address normal and robustness testing. To implement review approach addressed in section 5 of the MC/DC tutorial [3]. Page vi Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

11 Change Reason for the Change Moved 2.5 to 3.6 in Part 3 Integration activities are part of SOI #3 rather than SOI #2. Added in Part 3 To address RTOS integration issues, if an RTOS is used. Added 3.7 in Part 3 To address data/control coupling. Added To address low-level requirements coverage. Added in Part 3 To address preservation of development environment. Added 3.15 in Part 3 To address tool qualification as part of SOI 3 (if tools are used). Added 4.10 in Part 3 To address the software conformity review. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page vii

12 NOTES: Page viii Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

13 PART 1 OVERVIEW OF THE SOFTWARE REVIEW Purpose This Job Aid assists certification authorities, designees, and applicants in performing software reviews, as described in Chapter 2 of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order , Software Approval Guidelines [2]. The purpose of the software review is to assess whether or not the software developed for a project complies with the applicable objectives of RTCA/DO- 178B, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification [1]. This Job Aid should be used as a reference tool during the software review process. It is not intended to be used as a checklist and is not all inclusive of all possible situations that need to be reviewed. Nor is the Job Aid intended to replace DO-178B it should be used in conjunction with DO-178B. Likewise, this Job Aid may include questions that are not appropriate for the specific project being evaluated. Reviewers should keep in mind that each software project has some unique characteristics and should use the Job Aid as best fits the specific situation. This Job Aid only addresses the software review prior to certification/authorization for the following processes: Type Certificate (TC), Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), Amended Type Certificate (ATC), Amended STC (ASTC), or Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA). For purposes of this Job Aid, compliance, finding, observation, action, and issue are defined as follows: ϖ A compliance is the satisfaction of a DO-178B objective. ϖ A finding is the identification of a failure to show compliance to one or more of the RTCA/DO-178B objectives. ϖ An observation is the identification of a potential software life cycle process improvement. An observation is not an RTCA/DO-178B compliance issue and does not need to be addressed before software approval. ϖ An action is an assignment to an organization or person with a date for completion to correct a finding, error, or deficiency identified when conducting a software review. ϖ An issue is a concern not specific to software compliance or process improvement but may be a safety, system, program management, organizational, or other concern that is detected during a software review. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 1

14 The Job Aid will assist the software reviewer to do the following: ϖ Perform the reviews discussed in FAA Order [2]. ϖ Perform tasks associated with conducting a software review. ϖ ϖ Document review compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues. Link review compliances, findings, and observations to DO-178B objectives. Job Aid Layout This Job Aid addresses: Tasks to be performed before, during, and after a software review (Part 2). Activities and questions to be considered during a review (Part 3). An approach to correlate the findings, observations, and compliances to DO-178B objectives (Part 4). Supplements to the Job Aid provide examples and supporting information to help reviewers. Supplements have been packaged separately from the Job Aid s main body to reduce the Job Aid size and to provide flexibility. The supplements are summarized as follows: Supplement 1 Typical Roles and Responsibilities of the FAA s Software Team Supplement 2 Typical Roles and Responsibilities of the Software Designee Supplement 3 Examples (letters, agendas, and report) Supplement 4 Optional Worksheets for Reviewers NOTE: Other supplements may be added (as needed) and will be posted on the FAA s software web-site [9]. Page 2 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

15 Key Players in the Software Review Process Below is a high-level description of the role of the key players in the software review process. Table 1. Key Players in the Software Review Process Key Players Aviation Safety Engineer Software (ASE-SW) Aviation Safety Engineer (ASE) Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) Flight Test Engineer/Pilot Primary Role in Software Review Responsible for the software approval on the project or system being reviewed. Typically serves as the software review team leader and is responsible for coordination, scheduling, and other review activities. If not designated as team leader, the ASE-SW reviews data and assists the team leader. Reviews the technical aspects of the software development process. Works in propulsion, avionics/electrical systems, flight control systems, or mechanical systems with responsibility for approval of the overall system whose software is being reviewed. May not have software expertise, but is familiar with the system requirements and architecture; safety aspects; and system performance, operational, and functional expectations. May accompany the software review team to provide expertise on the systems aspects of the project and to review safety, operational, functional, performance, and system requirements; certification schedule performance concerns; and project issues. Needs to be kept informed of status on system, software, and hardware issues and their potential impact on system approval. Principal inspector for the applicant or developer whose software is being evaluated. Performs conformity inspections on the software, per chapter 4 of Order [2]. Evaluates the aircraft or the system installed on the aircraft by performing system demonstrations, simulations, and aircraft ground and flight tests. Evaluates the system performance on the aircraft and identifies any safety, operational, or performance concerns. Needs to be informed of status on system, hardware, and software issues and any potential limitations or impact on aircraft flight testing and certification schedule. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 3

16 Key Players Primary Role in Software Review Chief Scientific & Technical Advisor (CSTA) Serves as a technical consultant on new, novel, or unique technologies, methods, or means of compliance that require expert review and input, as needed. Technical Specialist (TS) Serves as a technical expert and a resource for the review team during the software review process. May serve as a link between the ASE-SW and the CSTA. Project Manager Responsible for coordination, schedule, and oversight of the overall certification project. Directorate Standards Staff Headquarters (HQ) Software Personnel Designated Engineering Representative (DER) With Software Authorization Manufacturing Designees Involved in situations that may require Directorate policy, issue papers, or special conditions for novel technology or methods. Provides technical expertise, when needed. Involved in projects that may require changes or additions to national software policy. Provides technical expertise, as needed. Works on behalf of the FAA (Aircraft Certification Office) to review software compliance. Assists as part of the review team. Often performs review(s) prior to the FAA review to make preliminary compliance findings and to resolve any issues. May be responsible for conducting review and providing review results to ASE-SW. May be responsible for recommending approval or approving the software aspects of the system or the system, if delegated. Works on behalf of the FAA (manufacturing organization) to perform software conformities, per chapter 4 of Order [2]. Page 4 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

17 Key Players Primary Role in Software Review Applicant Applies for Type Certificate, Supplemental Type Certificate, Amended Type Certificate, Amended Supplemental Type Certificate, or Technical Standard Order Authorization. Responsible for the compliance with applicable regulations, policy, special conditions, issue papers, and system and software policy. May or may not be the system or software developer. Responsible for oversight of system and/or software developer to ensure compliance, if applicable. Attends on-site software reviews. If the applicant is not the software developer, the applicant s oversight personnel, systems engineer, and/or other team members should be present at on-site reviews. Software Developer May be the applicant or one of their system suppliers who is the developer of the system and/or the developer of the software under evaluation to be installed on an aircraft. Members of software developer team may include: software program manager, software development manager/lead, software verification manager/lead, software engineers, programmers, software quality assurance (SQA) personnel, software configuration management (SCM) personnel, etc. NOTE: Supplement 1 of this document provides the typical roles and responsibilities of the FAA software personnel. Supplement 2 provides an overview of the typical software engineering designee roles (the designee is typically a DER; however, designees in the Designated Alteration Station or other authorized organizations may perform similar activities). Review Types There are two types of reviews used to determine if an applicant s software development complies with the DO-178B objectives: (1) on-site review and (2) desk review. These reviews are performed either by the FAA or the FAA s designees, or both. Applicants or developers may also perform self-assessment reviews (for example, through their quality assurance organization). The table below provides a brief description of each type of review, when each type is appropriate, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. This Job Aid addresses both the on-site and desk reviews. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 5

18 Table 2. On-Site/Desk Review Summary Type/Description When Appropriate Advantages/ Disadvantages On-Site Review: Review appropriate stages of the software development process. Conducted by team at the software developer s facility. (Note: Applicant s designees and SQA should be present). Desk Review: Review appropriate software life cycle data. Conducted by individual or team at FAA or applicant s facility. Little or no involvement by the software developer. Highly critical systems (Levels A and B software). New system being developed. Integrated, complex avionics system with multiple functions. First-time applicants or firsttime users of DO-178B. Applicant inexperienced in developing and/or overseeing software. Applicants with history of poor development processes. New or unique technology, software, methods, system or software architecture, safety proposals, partitioning concepts, etc. When a system demonstrates multiple problems during systems and flight testing. Major changes in the technology used or environment (e.g., personnel, tools, methods). At request of designee. FAA oversight of a designee is needed. Significant changes to previously approved software. Less critical systems (Levels C and D software). Experienced aviation companies with a good performance history. Confidence in designee is good. Advantages: Access to development personnel. More in-depth review. Higher confidence in safety aspects. Complete access to data. Helps perform designee performance evaluation. Disadvantages: Budget and time considerations. May require travel. May impact developer s schedule. Advantages: Not disruptive to the software developer s schedule and resources. Disadvantages: (if conducted offsite) Many companies do not allow data to be viewed without their presence. Cannot ask direct questions of software developers. May require shipment of large amounts of data. Page 6 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

19 The use of designees for software reviews is encouraged, when appropriate. Designees should be qualified and authorized for software. System designees are also encouraged to attend in order to contribute system domain expertise. The table below outlines when the delegation of a review is appropriate; additionally, some of the advantages and disadvantages of delegation are provided. Table 3. Delegation of Software Reviews When Appropriate Designee has demonstrated good performance and has proper authorization. For all systems without unique software characteristics. When there are no issues that have policy implications (Directorate or Headquarters). Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages: Familiar with applicant or developer s processes and data organization. Usually has been or is located on-site and can monitor the processes throughout the development. Disadvantages: May have company bias or have ownership perspective and not be impartial in assessing compliance. May have been promoted into management. May be pressured to cut corners when schedules are slipping. It is recommended that designees use the same type of review approach outlined in this Job Aid, plus any additional checks that they find necessary. The software review may be used for the evaluation and subsequent approval of software data within the TC, ATC, STC, ASTC, and TSOA processes. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 7

20 Stages of Involvement (SOI) DO-178B, Annex A includes ten tables, which outline the objectives that should be demonstrated by the applicant. The titles of the ten tables are provided below: A-1: Software Planning Process A-2: Software Development Process A-3: Verification of Outputs of Software Requirements Processes A-4: Verification of Outputs of Software Design Process A-5: Verification of Outputs of Software Coding and Integration Processes A-6: Testing of Outputs of Integration Process A-7: Verification of Verification Process Results A-8: Software Configuration Management Process A-9: Software Quality Assurance Process A-10: Certification Liaison Process The purpose of the software review is to ensure compliance to the DO- 178B objectives and other applicable software policy, guidance, and issue papers. To assess compliance, there are typically four Stages of FAA Involvement throughout the software life cycle of a project. The four SOI reviews are listed below and overviewed in Table 4: (1) Planning Review; (2) Development Review; (3) Verification Review; and (4) Final Review. For each SOI review the following information is provided: a brief description of the SOI, required data, related DO-178B Annex Tables used as evaluation criteria, and related sections of this Job Aid. Reviews may be combined or delegated to an authorized designee, as the project requires. Even if the FAA elects not to perform four reviews, it is strongly encouraged that designees perform on-site reviews and/or the applicant conducts internal compliance reviews using the approach outlined in this Job Aid. For some projects more than four reviews may be warranted; for example, a large project with many sub-systems, an integrated modular avionics system, or a project experiencing multiple problems. Page 8 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

24 Determining Level of Involvement As early as possible in the software project, the FAA (or designee, if delegated) should estimate the required level of involvement. The process for determining and documenting the FAA level of involvement is described in Chapter 3 of Order [2]. Early in the software project, the FAA (or designee) should evaluate such things as: the applicant/developer s experience; the history of the applicant/developer; the quantity/quality of designee support; the novelty/uniqueness of the system, technology, methods, or project; and the system criticality. Based on this early evaluation, the FAA will determine if the level of involvement is high, medium, or low. The level of FAA involvement will dictate the number of software reviews, the stages of involvement, and the nature of the review (i.e., desk or on-site). For example, for a critical system being developed by a company who has never used DO-178B, the level of FAA involvement would likely be high and on-site software reviews would be performed at all Stages of Involvement. However, for a level D system being developed by an experienced company with a good history, the level of FAA involvement would be low and all reviews would likely be delegated to designees and be performed as desk reviews. The FAA s involvement should be determined and documented as early as possible in the project. The Review Team It is recommended that reviews be performed using a team of two to four people. A team can typically perform a higher quality review than an individual and can reduce the amount of time required to perform the review. The review team will typically divide responsibilities. Depending on the size of the team, there should be at least one engineering (ENG) team member and one quality assurance/configuration management (QA/CM) team member. The ENG team member(s) will focus on development and/or verification data, while the QA/CM team member(s) considers the quality assurance and configuration management processes. Throughout this Job Aid the areas of responsibility for the ENG and QA/CM team members will be highlighted. In addition to the software engineers, there may be one or more non-software engineers as part of the team to oversee the systems, safety, and application aspects of the project. Additional team members may be a Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor, Technical Specialist, Directorate personnel, Headquarters personnel, or international certification authorities, as required. Page 12 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

25 PART 2 SOFTWARE REVIEW TASKS Overview of Common Tasks Regardless of the SOI for the software review, the following tasks will be done for each review: (1) Preparing for the review; (2) Performing the review (referencing the appropriate Job Aid tables and documenting the review compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues); (3) Preparing and delivering an exit briefing of the review; and (4) Conducting follow-up activities (e.g., prepare a report, assess if another review is required or if final compliance has been demonstrated). The following pages give a detailed description of the four tasks performed by the review team in conducting a software review. The person(s) responsible for each task is listed next to the task. The team leader is the ASE-SW or designee responsible for leading the review. The team is typically comprised of ASE-SWs, designees, and others, as needed. Once the SOI has been established, refer to the appropriate Activities/Questions Part 3 of this Job Aid. The Part 3 tables provide guidance as to what kinds of questions to ask to ensure that the DO-178B objectives are satisfied and other applicable software policy and agreements are complied with. If there is more than one SOI review, more than one set of tables will be referenced (e.g., if the review combines SOI #1 and SOI #2, tables for both SOIs would be used). The Tasks and Activities/Questions outlined emphasize the on-site software review; however, the same types of activities are appropriate for a desk review. The desk review would require a different type of notification letter and access to the applicant s personnel might be limited to telephone calls. However, the remainder of the activities are about the same. Places where the desk review differs from the on-site review are highlighted at the end of each task. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 13

26 TASK 1: Preparing for the Software Review The purpose of this task is to assemble the review team, notify the applicant of the review, coordinate delivery of materials, and prepare all team members for the software review. STEP 1: COORDINATE WITH THE CERTIFICATION TEAM (TEAM LEADER) 1.1 Inform the project manager of the plans to conduct a software review and discuss all concerns (e.g., issue papers, project impact, team members, travel funds, foreign certification authority involvement). 1.2 Coordinate with and obtain necessary information from ASEs and Flight Test certification team members. (Note: It is often beneficial to have a systems ASE on the review team.) 1.3 Inform the Principal Inspector of review plans coordinate any concerns regarding conformity, if appropriate. 1.4 If the software review is to be performed at a software developer s facility located in another cognizant ACO s area of responsibility, contact the appropriate ACO engineer for coordination. The other ACO engineer may desire to be part of the review team in order to perform routine oversight roles. 1.5 Address any non-us certification concerns with the FAA certification team and the international certification team, if appropriate. STEP 2: ORGANIZE THE REVIEW TEAM (TEAM LEADER) 2.1 Determine the members of the review team, based on project needs. ν ν ν Team should consist of at least one software engineering team member (ENG) and one quality assurance/configuration management (QA/CM) team member. Designees assigned to the project should be involved as part of the review team. Aviation Safety Engineer (ASE), Principal Inspector (PI), Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor (CSTA), Technical Specialist (TS), Directorate software personnel, or Headquarters (HQ) software personnel may be part of the team, as needed. 2.2 Coordinate a date for the review with the applicant and team members. Page 14 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

27 STEP 3: SEND A NOTIFICATION LETTER TO THE APPLICANT AT LEAST SIX WEEKS PRIOR TO THE REVIEW (TEAM LEADER) 3.1 The notification letter should inform the applicant of the: (1) purpose of the review; (2) proposed agenda; (3) data to be reviewed during the review; and (4) data to be sent to the review team members prior to the review. The applicant should be requested to send data to the review team members one month prior to the review start date. ν ν A sample notification letter and an agenda for each SOI may be found in Supplement 3, Section 1. The letter is about the same for each SOI; the agenda changes depending on the specific SOI. If the review combines Stages of Involvement, the contents of the agendas may be combined. For example, if a review was performed that combines the planning and development reviews (SOI #1 and SOI #2), the agenda, available data, and length of the meeting will need to combine the two sample agendas for SOI #1 and SOI #2 from Supplement 3, Section 1. STEP 4: COORDINATE WITH REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS (TEAM LEADER) 4.1 Assure that all review team members have copies of the Plan for Software Aspects of Certification (PSAC), Software Development Plan (SDP), Software Verification Plan (SVP), Software Configuration Management Plan (SCMP), Software Quality Assurance Plan (SQAP), Software Development Standards, and any other appropriate documentation at least two weeks prior to the review. (Note: These may not be the final copies of the plans, since they may change throughout the development process; however, they should be under configuration control.) 4.2 Assign responsibilities to team members: ν ν ν ν All team members should review all plans and prepare a list of questions/concerns on those plans to clarify with the applicant at the review. The ENG team member(s) focuses on the software development processes, including the verification activities. The QA/CM team member(s) focuses on the QA and CM processes. If CSTA, TS, Directorate, or HQ personnel are to be involved in the review, communicate the area where their expertise is needed, so that they can prepare and perform any necessary research prior to the review. 4.3 All team members should review the activities/questions for the appropriate SOI review, as listed in Part 3 of this Job Aid. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 15

28 STEP 5: MEET WITH ALL TEAM MEMBERS PRIOR TO THE SOFTWARE REVIEW TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES (TEAM) 5.1 This is typically a short meeting the evening or morning prior to the review. The purpose of this meeting is for all of the team members to be introduced, get a feel for any issues at the facility to be reviewed, get answers for any last minute questions relative to the review, and discuss any questions raised during preliminary review of software life cycle data. NOTE: In some cases, a teleconference works for this pre-review discussion; particularly, when the team is spread over geographical distances. Special Considerations for the Desk Review ϖ When notifying the applicant of the review, make arrangements for when and where the data should be sent. Also, specify the number of copies needed. ϖ Establish a Point of Contact (POC) at applicant s facility in case questions arise during the desk review. ϖ Consider setting up a teleconference with the applicant at the end of each day or keep a log of questions to fax the applicant since in-person interviews won t be possible. Page 16 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

29 TASK 2: Performing the Software Review and Documenting Compliances, Findings, and Observations The purpose of this task is to conduct all activities necessary to complete the review; document compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues; and determine next steps. STEP 1: CONDUCT ENTRY BRIEF WITH APPLICANT AND FAA TEAM (TEAM LEADER) 1.1 Introduce the review team members. 1.2 State the purpose of the review (summarize from the notification letter). 1.3 Review the agenda with the applicant and the appropriate personnel that need to be at each portion of the review. 1.4 Strive to create a good working partnership. STEP 2: PRESENT OVERVIEW OF APPLICANT S SYSTEM, SOFTWARE, AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (APPLICANT AND TEAM) 2.1 Applicant presents program overview and designees findings/observations/compliances from internal reviews. 2.2 During the applicant s presentation, the FAA review team focuses on those issues/processes compatible with their expertise. For example: ν ν ν ν ENG team member focuses on the software development process (and related verification activities) and technical issues. QA/CM team member focuses on implementation of SQA and SCM processes. If a system engineer is present, they should focus on the interfaces between the software engineering (development) processes and the systems engineering processes (including the system safety assessment process) and system verification and validation. The depth of the applicant s overview will depend on the type of review and whether or not the review team is familiar with the system or process (e.g., if this is a second review with the same team, the presentation may only be a memory jogger). Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 17

30 2.3 The review team assures that the applicant s presentation provides adequate information to give insight into the developer s processes and procedures. ν The review team members ask as many questions as needed to understand the software being reviewed. 2.4 The applicant s overview is generally limited in time to allow for adequate time to review data. The sample agendas, found in Supplement 3, Section 1, give a rough estimate of how much time should be allowed for the applicant s overview. (Note: The team leader should work to keep the review on schedule.) 2.5 It is recommended that the developer, applicant, or designee conduct a self-assessment of the project using the appropriate matrices for the type of review; and that they reveal any findings, observations, anomalies, potential issues, policy interpretations, or questions during the applicant overview session. This will enable the review team and applicant/developer to focus on coming to resolution of those items before the review is completed. STEP 3: REVIEW APPLICANT S SOFTWARE DATA AND INTERVIEW THE APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL (TEAM) 3.1 Part 3 of this Job Aid provides a summary of activities to be performed and questions to be answered during a review. The particular SOI being reviewed dictates which table is referenced. If the review is a combination of SOIs, multiple tables should be used. 3.2 The activities/questions outlined in Part 3 are a guide. There may need to be more or less activities/questions, depending on the nature of the project. Also, the sequence of activities/questions is flexible. The goal of the Job Aid is to provide a standardized approach for getting started. This includes sufficient guidance to cover many situations. Each software development project will have unique aspects that are impossible to capture in a standardized Job Aid. If there is anything that is not understood during the review, the review team, the applicant, and the developer should discuss it further, and attempt to come to an agreement during the review. STEP 4: DOCUMENT THE SOFTWARE REVIEW COMPLIANCES, FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS, ACTIONS, AND ISSUES (TEAM) 4.1 Document the compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues in detail. (Compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues are defined in Part 1 of this Job Aid in the Purpose section). Throughout the review, each team member should take notes on what documents (number, revision level, date) were reviewed, what thread traces were conducted, areas of concern (issues), non-compliance to DO-178B objectives (findings), discussions with the developer and applicant, and any other concerns or issues. The review compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues are included in the exit briefing and review report and must be documented in detail. The compliances, findings, and observations, should be documented in enough detail that they could be found again by another reviewer (i.e., reviews must be repeatable). Issues and actions outside the scope of the software aspects should be communicated to project management and appropriate specialists (systems, safety, flight test, etc.) for resolution. Page 18 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

31 STEP 5: MEET AT THE END OF EACH DAY TO ASSESS PROGRESS, SUMMARIZE AND DOCUMENT COMPLIANCES, FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS, ACTIONS, AND ISSUES, AND PLAN FOR THE NEXT DAY (TEAM) 5.1 The team leader should keep a list of compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues based on input from team members. [Note: Team members are encouraged to provide their list of items to the team leader in a manner that minimizes the team leader s workload.] 5.2 Team members should discuss any concerns, questions, etc. and come to a common understanding and agreement on how to proceed. 5.3 The team should plan activities for the next day. Note: The end-of-the-day meeting should be held in privacy to discuss issues openly (i.e., this meeting typically excludes the development team). Designees should be involved in the end-ofday meetings. During these meetings you may consider starting the DO-178B Compliances/Findings/Observations table, if time permits. (This will save time required for follow-up activities.) Special Considerations for the Desk Review ϖ The entry brief would only be a discussion among the review team members since the review is not on-site. ϖ The applicant would not present the program overview this information will be obtained by reading documents. ϖ It will not be possible to interview personnel or witness development activities; however, you may want to keep a list of questions to fax to the applicant or discuss over the telephone. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 19

32 TASK 3: Preparing and Conducting Exit Briefing The purpose of this task is to summarize compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues and to share them with the applicant. The exit briefing addresses all issues related to DO-178B compliance, other related issues, and next steps. STEP 1: PREPARE FOR THE BRIEFING BY HAVING A REVIEW TEAM MEETING (TEAM) 1.1 Discuss compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues; and agree on recommended action. 1.2 Determine and agree on how to debrief the applicant. 1.3 Summarize individual team member compliances, findings, and observations in sufficient detail for incorporation into the report. 1.4 Prepare summary of issues based on end-of-day meetings. 1.5 Organize presentation order for the exit briefing and agree on who will present. (In most cases, the team leader will brief all compliances, findings, observations, actions, and issues. However, in some cases individual team members will brief their own.) STEP 2: PRESENT EXIT BRIEFING (TEAM) 2.1 Provide introduction to exit briefing. (Team Leader) ν ν ν ν ν Thank the applicant for the cooperation extended. Be attentive to the applicant s organizational environment and its concerns and issues. Present information in an objective, positive manner. Give an overview of the review s purpose and briefing content. Compliment and thank designees, applicant, and software developer, as appropriate. 2.2 Present compliances, findings, and observations in relationship to DO-178B objectives. (Team and Team Leader) 2.3 Summarize all issues that may be relevant to certification and compliance. (Team Leader) 2.4 Summarize any actions that must be taken (e.g., another review may be required to determine progress or the designees may need to perform an in-house review). (Team Leader) 2.5 Inform applicant that a report will be prepared by the FAA and sent with a letter to summarize and document findings, observations, compliances, issues, and actions. (Team Leader) Page 20 Software Review Job Aid Revision 1

33 Special Considerations for the Desk Review ϖ A briefing or summary of the review should still be prepared; however, the delivery may be by teleconference or written report. Software Review Job Aid Revision 1 Page 21

Prologue This amendment of The FAA and Industry Guide to Product Certification (CPI Guide) incorporates changes based on lessons learned and supports the broader use of this guide by providing additional

Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) Position Paper CAST-26 VERIFICATION INDEPENDENCE COMPLETED January 2006 (Rev 0) NOTE: This position paper has been coordinated among the software specialists

Cognizant 20-20 Insights The Impact of RTCA DO-178C on Software Development By following DO-178C, organizations can implement aeronautical software with clear and consistent ties to existing systems and

QUALITY MANUAL Revision D Gujll'y Manual Introduction The purpose of this manual is to describe the Quality Assurance Program implemented by Camar Aircraft Products Co. (hereafter referred to as C.A.P.C.)

Certification Authorities Software Team (CAST) Position Paper CAST-19 Clarification of Structural Coverage Analyses of Data Coupling and Control Coupling Completed January 2004 (Rev 2) NOTE: This position

The document in this file is adapted from the IEEE standards for Software Project Management Plans, 1058-1998, which conforms to the requirements of ISO standard 12207 Software Life Cycle Processes. Tailor

New Program Quality Requirements for Suppliers (NPQR) For Limited Manufacturing of Components and/or Processes for Engineering Certification Revision A New Program Quality Requirements for Suppliers Rev.

New Program Quality Requirements for Suppliers (NPQR) For Limited Manufacturing of Components and/or Processes for Engineering Certification Revision - New Program Quality Requirements for Suppliers Rev.

ORDER 8150.1C Effective Date: 03/08/12 SUBJ: Technical Standard Order Program This order explains how to evaluate and issue technical standard order (TSO) authorizations (TSOAs) and letters of TSO design

REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION BODIES TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE OF APPLICANT ORGANIZATIONS TO THE MAGEN TZEDEK SERVICE MARK STANDARD Foreword The Magen Tzedek Commission has established a standards and certification

1(19) Cross reference tables for H ProgSäk (E) and DO-178B A comparison has been made between requirement areas covered by H ProgSäk (E) and DO-178B respectively. Tables for correspondences and differences

ISO 9001 Quality Systems Manual Revision: D Issue Date: March 10, 2004 Introduction Micro Memory Bank, Inc. developed and implemented a Quality Management System in order to document the company s best

Frédéric Pothon ACG Solutions DO-330/ED-215 Benefits of the New Tool Qualification Document Frédéric Pothon, 2013 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons January 2013 Contributions and Reviews Laurent

1) Explain quality control and also explain cost of quality. Quality Control Quality control involves the series of inspections, reviews, and tests used throughout the software process to ensure each work

Appendix H Software Development Plan Template Version 2 March 7, 2005 This page is intentionally left blank. Version 2 March 7, 2005 Title Page Document Control Panel Table of Contents List of Acronyms

FOREWARD The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) has determined there is a lack of consistency across the federal agencies for safety and health training at all staff levels.

Page 1 of 8 TITLE: Control of Software WARNING This document is the property of United Technologies Corporation (UTC). You may not possess, use, copy or disclose this document or any information in it,

Special Permits Program Desk Guide Version 2.2 March 2016 Approvals Program Standard Operating Procedures Version 1.0 i Disclaimer The materials contained in this document consist of guidance and other

B o a r d of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Supplemental Policy Statement on the Internal Audit Function and Its Outsourcing January 23, 2013 P U R P O S E This policy statement is being issued

Proposed amendments Annex to ED Decision 2015/011/R The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text, new or amended text as shown below: deleted text is marked with strike through; new or amended